Roger Sherman, Connecticut’s greatest statesman and Founding Father, former Connecticut U.S. Congressman and Senator. How far we have fallen.

Thomas Jefferson said of Roger: “That is Mr. Sherman of Connecticut, a man who never said a foolish thing in his life.”

Patrick Henry called him one of the three greatest men at the Constitutional Convention.

John Adams described Sherman as “an old Puritan, as honest as an angel and as firm in the cause of American Independence as Mount Atlas.”

Fellow delegate Jeremiah Wadsworth honored his effectiveness in concluding he was “as cunning as the Devil in managing legislation.”

Toward the end of our Civil/Revolutionary war with England, he was the most influential figure in Congress.

If you like history, and Connecticut history, the below is a good read.

“Others were more admired for brilliancy of imagination, splendour of eloquence, and the graces of polished society; but there were few, even in that assemblage of eminent characters, whose judgment was more respected, or whose opinions were more influential. – Oliver Oldschool

“The foundation of his usefulness as a man, and his distinction as a statesman, was integrity. … his reputation for integrity was so unquestionable, that, in all the various decisions of public questions in which he had a voice, it is not probable that any man suspected him of a selfish bias, or of sinister motives” – Oliver Oldschool

Connecticut’s greatest statesman, Roger Sherman. Compare this man to our current U.S. Senators Blumenthal and Murphy. It is shameful how far we have fallen.

The Port Folio Vol. XVIII from July to December 1824, by Oliver Oldschool (an excerpt)

Roger Sherman, son of a cobbler born in Newton, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1721, exemplifies the self-made man. After attending the local “common” schools he was apprenticed as a cobbler, but he became a self-taught mathematician and scholar. After his father’s death he entered business with his brother in Connecticut and studied and practiced law. From 1755 until his death he was active in public affairs. Sherman moved to New Milford in 1743.

He became a surveyor, town clerk, deacon, lawyer. and U.S. Senator (1791-93). During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 where he was one of the most vocal and persistent members, he made 138 speeches and spared no effort to defend the rights of smaller states such as Connecticut. Under the pseudonym “A Countryman” he wrote a series of newspaper letters to the people of Connecticut supporting ratification of the Constitution.

He was the prime mover behind the Connecticut Compromise, the basis for the “Great Compromise” at the convention that finally solved the problem of representation. In this plan, designed to be acceptable to both large and small states, the people would be represented proportionally in one branch of the legislature, called the House of Representatives (the lower house). The states would be represented in another house called the Senate (the upper house). In the lower house, each state had a representative for every one delegate. On the other hand, in the upper house each state was guaranteed two senators, no matter their size.

Sherman is also memorable for his stance against paper money and his authoring of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

Mr. Wilson & Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words “coin money” the words “nor emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold & silver coin a tender in payment of debts” making these prohibitions absolute, instead of making the measures allowable (as in the XIII art:) with the consent of the Legislature of the U.S. … Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the Legislature in order to license it.”[5]

Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, whose biography closes this volume, sustained a considerable reputation among his contemporaries for sagacity and judgment, and the numerous public situations he successively filled are evidence that he deserved it. It has not been, we believe, so generally known, that, like Franklin and Rittenhouse, he struggled through all the disadvantages attending a humble parentage, and the pursuit of a mechanical trade. Sherman was an apprentice to a shoemaker, and even followed that business till he was upwards of 22 years of age.

It is recorded of Mr. Sherman that he was accustomed to sit at his work with a book before him, devoting to study every moment that his eyes could be spared from the occupation in which he was engaged. The same thirst for knowledge was evinced by Dr. Franklin whilst he laboured as a tallow-chandler in the shop of his father, and during his apprenticeship as a printer, to his brother. Upon the removal of the family, in 1723, Mr. Sherman travelled, with his tools, on foot, to New Milford, where he continued to work at his trade for some time. Dr. Franklin, at the age of seventeen, performed his pedestrian journey to Philadelphia in search of employment, the circumstances of which are so admirably depicted in the simple and engaging narrative of his life.

Instances of this kind are not only memorable as exhibiting the extraordinary worth of the individual, who thus elevates himself beyond the common level, but are useful examples to mankind.

Sherman was bom in Massachusetts, in 1721, and died in 1793. He removed to Connecticut at an early age, and spent his life chiefly in that state. His education was only that of a common country school; yet, by his industry, he so much improved his mind, as to fill, during his life, the offices of judge, member of Congress, during the Revolution and under the Constitution, member of the convention that formed the Constitution, and senator of the United States, and held them not only with reputation and ability, but with the exercise of a considerable share of influence over the most important measures of the country, in its trying times.

Few members of the Revolutionary Congress seem to have had more of a business-doing character than Roger Sherman. He was an able speaker, at the same time that he was looked up to in a peculiar manner as a prudent and wise counsellor. Indeed there is a considerable similarity in his character, taken altogether, to that of Cato the elder: the same success in bursting through the obstacles of humble birth and narrow means: the same severe simplicity and gravity; strong practical wisdom; a turn for popular assemblies, and for influencing the opinions of others; add to this a public zeal, industry, and disinterestedness worthy of the best ages of a republic.

In August, 1774, the committee of correspondence nominated Mr. Sherman, in conjunction with Joseph Trumbull, Eliphalet Dyer, and Silas Dean, esquires, as proper persons to attend the general congress of the colonies, for the purpose of consulting and advising 4 on proper measures for advancing the best good of the colonies.’ Mr. Sherman, agreeably to this appointment, was present at the opening of the first congress; and it is an honour of which few can boast, that he invariably continued a member of congress until his death in 1793, embracing the long period of nineteen years, whenever the law requiring a rotation in office,’ admitted it.

It is impossible to enumerate the various services rendered by Mr. Sherman during his congressional career. The novel and responsible situation to which he was now elevated, was well calculated to elicit the firmness of his character, and the comprehensiveness of his political sagacity.

Although he united his efforts to those of the assembled representatives, in their honest endeavors to preserve at once the peace of the country, and the rights of its citizens, he appears to have been decidedly convinced, that nothing but unconditional submission could avert the horrors of civil war; and he fully evinced, by the energetic measures which he zealously supported, that, in his opinion, it was far preferable to endure sorrow for a season, than sink into a long and degrading servitude.

As a representative and senator in congress, he appeared with distinguished reputation. Others were more admired for brilliancy of imagination, splendour of eloquence, and the graces of polished society; but there were few, even in that assemblage of eminent characters, whose judgment was more respected, or whose opinions were more influential. The boldness of his counsels, the decisive weight of his character, the steadiness of his principles, the inflexibility of his patriotism, his venerable appearance, and his republican manners, presented to the imagination the idea of a Roman senator, in the early and most exemplary days of the commonwealth.

In the business of committees, generally so arduous and fatiguing, he was undoubtedly one of the most serviceable and indefatigable members of that body. His unwearied application, — the remarkable perseverance with which he pursued and completed the matters confided to his investigation,—and the regular system by which all his proceedings were governed,—when joined to his great prudence, acknowledged talents, and unshaken virtue,—attracted universal confidence; hence a large and important share of the public business, particularly when referred to committees, was assigned to him, in conjunction with other leading members of the house.

The foundation of his usefulness as a man, and his distinction as a statesman, was integrity, which, at an early period, formed one of the principal ground-works of his character, and was founded upon religious principle. All his actions seem to have been preceded by a rigorous self-examination, and the secret interrogatories of ” What is right ?”—” What course ought I to pursue ?” He never propounded to himself the questions of ” Hots will it affect my interest?””—” Will it be popular?”

Hence his reputation for integrity was so unquestionable, that, in all the various decisions of public questions in which he had a voice, it is not probable that any man suspected him of a selfish bias, or of sinister motives, however strongly he may have been opposed to the measures which Mr. Sherman considered it his duty to support. This high quality, which is one of the most essential supports of religion and morality, and without which, no redeeming virtues can elevate man from his abasement, will, at least in some degree, account for the extraordinary influence which he enjoyed in deliberative bodies, lie possessed the essential requisite of an orator, mentioned by Cicero;—he was universal^ considered, and was in fact, a good man.

When he reasoned, and expressed his opinion of any subject, no apprehensions were entertained by his hearers that anything was concealed with a view to mislead, or that one reason was assigned, while a different one influenced his decision. Many anecdotes attest the unbounded confidence which was entertained for the judgment of Mr. Sherman.

Fisher Ames was accustomed to express his opinion by saying, That if he happened to be out of his seat when a subject was discussed, and came in when the question was about to be taken, he always felt safe in voting as Mr. Sherman did; for he always voted right.

The late Dr. Spring, of Newburyport, was returning from the south, while congress was sitting in Philadelphia. Mr. Jefferson accompanied him to the hall, and designated several distinguished members of that body: in the course of this polite attention, he pointed in a certain direction, and exclaimed, ” That is Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, a man who never said a foolish thing in his life.”

Mr. Macon, now a distinguished member of the senate of the United States, once remarked to Mr. Reed, of Marblehead, formerly a member of congress, that ” Roger Sherman had more common sense than any man he ever knew.”

Washington uniformly treated Mr. Sherman with great respect and attention, and gave undoubted proof that he regarded his public services as eminently valuable.

The late Dr. Edwards, one of the most eminent divines which this country has produced, was accustomed to speak of him under the appellation of ” my great and good friend, senator Sherman.”

Below are some of my observations after this weekend’s Republican Party convention, and specifically the Governor’s race as it unfolded over the almost six hours needed to create a Party nominee with a 50% +1 majority on Saturday. The sausage making. This was my third convention as a delegate, and by far the craziest and most contested with eight candidates for Governor, and four for Lieutenant Governor.

Note: Anyone that achieves 15% of votes on a ballot automatically qualifies for the August primary.

After the first ballot, Boughton, Herbst and Lumaj were leading. Lumaj, fell just 3 votes shy of qualifying to be on the August primary ballot. Because they did not achieve 8% of the vote, Handler and Srivansan were eliminated from the next ballot, and no switching of votes were allowed per the rules.

Ballot two, after switches, Boughton and Herbst pulled away, and the surprising Steve Obsitnik came in third with 17.6% of the vote, and each advanced to the 3rd ballot. Peter Lumaj came in fourth (14.3%), 9 votes shy of achieving the 15%, and was eliminated as well as was Mark Lauretti (2.3%) and Dave Walker (1.2%).

Surprises for me: Walker did so poorly, and Steve Obsitnik did so well. I also expected Peter would qualify to be on the August ballot.

With a 50%+1 needed for the nomination, after ballot three with no switches, Boughton held a 42.4% to a 37.8% advantage over Herbst with Obsitnik at 19.8%. This is where it gets interesting; during the third ballot switch process.

Conservative and traditional Republican delegates did not want the liberal, and anti 2A Boughton winning the top line on the ticket. This meant during the final switch if you wanted to put Herbst on the top line vice Boughton, Obsitnik voters would need to switch their vote to Herbst (Obsitnik at this point is already qualified for the August primary ballot).

As it turned out, during the switch, Obsitnik voters gave Boughton the Party nomination when 86 switched to Boughton, and only 34 switched to Herbst. Boughton at the top of the ticket is in the best interest of Obsitnik if you portray yourself as a conservative outsider.

At the end of three ballots, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton with large Fairfield County support fairly won the Party nomination. When Chairman JR Romano called for acceptance of the nomination through an Aye or Nay vote, all hell broke loose.

When he asked all in favor say Aye, a loud group of delegates loudly yelled Aye. He asked: those opposed say Nay, the Nay crowd was equal in volume or louder in opposition. A bit of confusion ensued, and then the Chair implored again banging the oversized gavel: those in favor say Aye, and this time, the Ayes were way louder; those opposed, say Nay, and the Nays, were even way louder again. With no voice vote achieved from the 1,100 delegates. Yelling and screaming between the tribes ensued.

They then realized that a hundred or so guests were voice voting with the delegates, so they cleared the room so that only delegates would be heard. Not surprisingly, same outcome.

We are then told to prepare to divide the house which few knew what the hell that even meant. Turns out, it means Aye’s all move to one side of the room, and Nay’s to the other and they count heads. Good thing cooler heads prevailed on this idea.

Someone made a point of order that some towns did not vote due to lack of agenda and communications confusion. Apparently rejected. Dennis Cleary makes a point of order, which no one can hear because of the yelling. After a bit more confusion, and some oversized and displeased gaveling, we are next told to stand if Aye, and sit of Nay and they will take a count (much better than 1,100 people moving). They had runners take a count, the nomination was declared accepted, and Mark Boughton was declared the winner.

The cheers and jeers at the announcement were equally load and boisterous. It was a clearly divided room. A crazy 45 minute switch period and vote.

At the Convention, the divide between the cities and rural towns was evident; between east of the river versus west evident, and between Boughton fans and the Herbst fans evident.

In my opinion, the chaos at the end of the third ballot vote was created by the Chair asking for acceptance. Acceptance was and is when the final vote tally was taken and a candidate achieved 50%+1 (Dennis Cleary’s point of order). Boughton won in accordance with the rules, and should have been declared the party nominee at the end of the voting. Acceptance occurred with the vote, acceptance with a voice vote is nonsensical.

So, out of the Convention, there are three candidates who achieved August primary ballot access.

Boughton, Herbst, and Obsitnik are on the ballot. All qualify for $1.25M of Connecticut taxpayer funds to campaign to the primary in August (win the nomination; you receive $6M for 3 months). Additionally, there are two credible self funders who skipped the Convention (Stefansowski and Stenerman).

At the convention, there were 1,133 delegates who voted for the GOP party nominee for Governor. In August, there will be about 80,000 Republican primary voters who actually decide who the GOP candidate to run against Ned Lamont or whomever the Democrats nominate in August.

For the self funders, both correctly calculated they would not achieve 15% from the Republican establishment and pledged delegates, and they are expected to petition their way on the ballot. Because they are not part of the Citizens Election Program (CEP) program, they are able to spend as much money as they want. Stenerman put down a $1.2 million commitment. That is a total of five on the August ballot, and it is possible one or more of the losers this weekend might also petition their way on the ballot.

The best thing that happened at the Convention for conservatives is that @Joe Markley won the nomination for Lieutenant Governor on the first ballot against two liberal Republicans (Erin Stewart and Jayme Stevenson). He is likely to face a primary from both, but 54% of the delegates supporting him on the first ballot is great.

Consider, Limousine Liberals whose children attend private schools with an armed staff for protection lecture the rest of us that we cannot have armed staff in our schools protecting our children because it would be too dangerous.

You see, they have decided their children are more important than your children. They will protect your children with a sign, a law, and slogans. They do not live under the laws they create for you.

As I watched this Joe Kennedy kid give the Democrat’s response to the State of the Union, I felt sorry for him. Sent, like a lamb to slaughter. The kid had no intellectual game, just emotional, social justice mumbo jumbo. Not a single solution proffered. Not a single direct challenge to the president’s policy.

Unbelievably, the backdrop shows a car, in case you forgot about his uncle Ted, the coward who drove his car into a river, and left a woman to die as he ran away. You know, the Democrat’s exalted him as the Lion of the Senate. The kid has no Kennedy charisma, and he’s got something drooling from his mouth (reported to be chapstick). IMO, not a good national TV experience for young, and entitled Joe.

Ask yourself, why is Joe Kennedy, an entitled, super rich 37 year old congressman from Massachusetts, (anointed/handed Barnie Franks congressional seat), presenting the national Democrat Party’s political response to a President’s SOTU. This is a serious prime time gig. You are to refute the President on his policies past and future.

IMO, the kid bombed. It was like he was afraid to go after Donald. Offered not a single solution to the problems they complain. Maybe because they have none. Continue reading →

Everyone agrees, high electricity costs are regressive, hurt the poor and middle class most disproportionate, like inflation, a hidden tax on the working class and poor.

You then have to ask yourself, if Connecticut Democrats and Leftists are the party of the poor people as they self proclaim, why do they advocate for energy policies that punish the poor and middle class with the highest cost of electricity in the continental United States?

According to EIA (1), Connecticut pays the highest electricity rates in the continental United States. In fact, in the latest 2017 report, Connecticut pays on average 11% higher electricity rates than all the New England states. We pay 45% higher than Maine. We pay 20% higher than New York and 47% higher than New Jersey for other comparables. See Chart below.

And make no mistake; these higher prices are by design, they are purposeful. Created by government intervention and for our own good they tell us; even if we rubes don’t get it.

Why do citizens of Connecticut pay higher electricity prices than all comparable states? Simply, because the Leftists in our General Assembly and multiple participants in the Governor’s mansion have decided we should pay higher prices. It’s that simple. It didn’t happen by accident; and it’s been decades in the making.

Ask yourself, what is Connecticut doing differently than other comparable states such that we pay 11% on average higher in electricity? Why?

If you follow the Leftist logic, we are paying higher prices for our own good.

Connecticut energy policies are driven by a desire to make our state honorable and prideful in the “progressive” global community; doing more than our fair share to stop global warming by reducing Connecticut’s global CO2 footprint through restrictive energy policies, no matter the increased cost to the poor, middle class and all citizens and businesses of Connecticut through higher energy costs.

One example: Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program. A Leftist redistribution of wealth program and perfect example of state level fascism that guarantees Connecticut citizens and businesses pay high electricity prices. Through policy and law, politicians use other people’s money (taxpayer money) to buy votes and repay favors. Rent seeking corporate interests create laws and regulation through willing legislators, and are rewarded with lucrative and artificially created business opportunities in a false renewable energy market.

How much does this state intervention in our energy market cost Connecticut taxpayers you might ask? Well, according to HartfordBusiness.Com, we Connecticut citizen will pay on average $377M in additional electricity costs or $1.8 billion in unnecessary energy costs in just the next five years to fund this program (2). By 2024, the promise is that citizens will “only pay” $249M per year. Like all government estimates, you can double this to be closer to the truth.

Think about the logic. Legislators want Connecticut citizens to pay $377M per year in hidden taxes to fund a program to create energy sources that will require taxpayers to pay more for electricity. Got that. We are paying money to figure out how we can pay more money for electricity. It’s absurd.

Connecticut’s energy policy is nonsensical, and unrelated to reducing energy costs for citizens. And some state legislators believe more government intervention is the solution. SMH.

After the 2008 financial crisis, we were told the banks are too big to fail and we need a law. The Dodd-Frank Bill was passed and signed into law by President Obama, and now, the biggest banks are bigger, and small community banks are purposefully driven out of business. The complete opposite of what the intelligentsia told us would occur.

Think about this the next time some “progressive” tells you they are smart enough to control the earth’s climate.

The Left ruins so much. Now it’s sports. Nothing is immune. A few observations and thoughts about kneeling for our national anthem, the new cause célèbre of the enlightened football player and fan.

Colin Kaperneck, father of the NFL anthem kneeling movement, kneeled last year during our national anthem to openly show disdain for our country, and is known to wear pig socks to show solidarity with BLM whose mantra is “what do we want, dead cops, when do want them, now”. Colin believes our country systemically “oppresses black people and people of color” and there are “bodies in the street” as a result of white man oppression. Those kneeling today seem to agree with this sentiment.

There is no NFL rule that says players must stand during the anthem. The NBA does have such a rule, and suspended a player 20 years ago for violation.

If NFL players were as common and had the skills of waiters who disrespected their customers, they’d have been fired by now. No business owner would allow an employee to alienate their customers without consequence, unless the alienation was worth the money.

1,696 players suit up each week in the NFL, 70% are black Americans. I read over 100 players took a knee this week (if true, 3.2 per team average). The overwhelming majority locked arms in solidarity with our anthem. Teammates showed respect for each other’s position which is expected when you are part of a team. It seems however; overwhelmingly, players agree it is respectful to stand for the anthem. A story not being told. At Gillette stadium, a liberal bastion, fans rained down boos on those Patriot players that took a knee today.

To those that continue to argue it is their free speech or Constitutional right to kneel during the anthem (mostly lefty’s) you are wrong if they are doing it at work. When they/you are on company time, you must comport to your employer’s rules. You can’t just do whatever you want without consequences which include termination of employment. Off the clock, different story, but most employers (like mine) still have codes of conduct where off work actions can lead to termination.

If Jerry Jones tells his team if anyone takes a knee they will be fired, that is his right as the owner according with the employment contract and at will work rights. If Dak took a knee, we’d see if Jerry really meant it.

Like urban governments, the owners have lost control, and they will regret it. What social justice cause is now not allowed? Are there any limits? Will they bow to PETA or Muslim sympathizers and no longer toss a pig skin because it hurts animals and discriminates against Muslims? Will they ban pulled pork? When BLM, Jesse, and Al show up demanding that the league is 70% black, and therefore team management and park concession personnel must be 70% black, or they can no longer use cotton towels, and the players agree, what now? Welcome to your own self created slippery slope.

To those publicly pledging they’ll not watch another game, it sounds to me like a New Years Eve pledge, something said to make you feel better, but I’ll bet few follow through. Kinda like the pledges made during the baseball strike.

Seems odd that in 2016, after 97 years of operation as a league, for the first time, standing for our national anthem has become an issue. Throughout all the turmoil of our country, it is a problem just now.

What I don’t understand about Colin, and his sympathizers: they complain about dead bodies of black men in the street. Yet, will not acknowledge that the vast majority of dead black men are the result of being killed by other black men, not white men, and least of all cops. They want you to believe cops are the problem.

Connecticut Democrat political leaders are despicable. They control both the Senate and House in our General Assembly, and they have not yet produced a budget. They are letting Malloy rule the roost as they bicker amongst themselves. The only item they agreed on was cutting the unions a sweetheart deal as reward for helping them get elected and stay in power.

Now, they want to blame the Republicans, the minority party in both chambers, if their proposed budget fails to be passed. And if it does, it will be the Republican’s fault that Governor Malloy is operating through Executive action. It will be the GOP’s fault that aide to towns and schools are not being made or are being cut. Cuts to social services are the Republicans fault. If people die, it’s the Republicans fault.

The chutzpah is unbelievable. Apparently, Connecticut Democrats define bipartisanship as: we will not debate your ideas; you must accept ours. And if you don’t do what we say, the people will suffer and it is your fault Continue reading →

As student of history and politics, I’ve always been fascinated on how the Democrats were able to paint the Republican Party as the party of racism, contrary to the objective truth to the opposite. Did history change? Certainly in the minds of many it did.

I just came across the attached article by Kevin Willamson for NRO in 2012. A great summary of the events and activities on how the Democrats’ created the myth of the Southern Strategy which is characterized by the Left as:

“The Southern strategy was Richard Nixon’s strategy to whiteify the electorate so Republicans could hold onto power in light of demographic changes. It began as a grab for southern states during the 1968 and 1972 elections: a combination of dog-whistle politics as well as a deliberately racist agenda” (1)

In political practice, it is this narrative Democrats use to falsely explain how the party of Lincoln, the party of Civil Rights in America became the party of the KKK and Jim Crow. And when you understand the Democrat’s monopoly on our children’s education, it is easy to understand how this lie was perpetuated as a general truth in our society. Continue reading →

State Senator Mae Flexer (D-Killligly) proudly leads the fight for abortion in Connecticut.

For her and her Pro Abortion group, they now consider the right to kill a baby any moment prior to birth a new litmus test to be a member of the Democrat party. If you are a Pro Life Democrat, you are no longer welcome in Mae’s party. How progressive and tolerant is that? Pass the word.

Mae and the “Progressives” demand the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment enacted in 1976 bans federal funds from being used for abortions except for unique and few circumstances. They now want taxpayers to pay for on-demand abortions, a practice many citizens find unconscionable. In fact, in a 2016 Politico/Harvard poll, 58% of Americans oppose federal money for abortions, just 36% favored. Mae desires the state pay for all the abortions not picked up by the Feds, which is basically all of them. Continue reading →

Next Tea Party Meeting!

Meetings are held every 2nd Monday of each month starting at 7:00 p.m. at Victoria Station Cafe in Putnam, CT (upstairs in Tea Room). At each meeting we offer a Cup of Tea featured speaker or informational presentation, open to members, friends, neighbors and the public. Our goal is to inform all citizens on matters that matter.

Contact Duffy Dauphinais at duffyqctpp@gmail.com for additional information or about becoming a QCTPP email member.

Next meeting: Monday, 08 October at the Victoria Station Cafe starting at 7:00 p.m.. Our featured Cup of Tea speaker is Kurt Miller, GOP candidate for State Comptroller.